HB 338 - Turnaround Elligible Schools
Eleanor F. Miller
Georgia State University College of Law, elllefmlller@gmall.com
Heather E. Obelgoner
Georgia State University College of Law, hobelgoner1@student.gsu.edu
[Page 169]
Code Sections: O.C.G.A. §§ 20-2-73 (amended); -83 (amended); -2063.2 (amended); -2067.1 (amended); 20-14-41 (amended);-43 (new);
[Page 170]
-44 (new); -45 (new); -46 (new); -47 (new); -48 (new); -49 (new); -49.1 (new); -49.2 (new); -49.3 (new); -49.4 (new)
Bill Number: HB 338
Act Number: 27
Georgia Laws: 2017 Ga. Laws 75
Summary: The Act creates the position of Chief Turnaround Officer (CTO) and authorizes the State Board of Education, in collaboration with the State School Superintendent and the Education Turnaround Advisory Council, to search for and appoint the CTO. The CTO has the authority to recommend individuals to serve as turnaround coaches upon approval by the state board. The Act defines the term "turnaround eligible schools" and identifies factors upon which the CTO may identify such schools. The Act provides procedures by which the CTO and turnaround coaches shall intervene in such schools. The Act creates the Education Turnaround Advisory Council, which shall review reports created by the CTO informing the Council of the progress of each school in which the CTO elected to intervene. The Act also creates the Joint Study Committee on the Establishment of a Leadership Academy. Finally, the Act amends the reasons for which a local school board member may be suspended or removed from his or her position.
Effective Date: July 1, 2017
[Page 171]
History
House Bill (HB) 338, known as the First Priority Act, was signed into law immediately after Governor Nathan Deal's (R) failed Opportunity School District (OSD) proposal from 2015.1 The controversial OSD enabling legislation, Senate Bill (SB) 133, did not go into effect after Georgia voters declined to amend the Georgia Constitution to imbue the General Assembly with the power to establish the OSD, which would have allowed the state to intervene in "chronically failing" schools.2 Governor Deal championed the OSD legislation in response to the startling statistic that approximately eleven percent of Georgia's schools were considered "failing."3 Almost immediately, parents, teachers, and interest groups rallied in opposition to the legislation, sparking a highly contentious debate about the future of the state's educational system.4 While remnants of OSD can be seen in the First Priority Act, the new legislation appears to have addressed opponents' major concerns and has generally received wide bipartisan support.5
In recent years, "turnaround districts" have emerged throughout the nation as a potential answer to the growing problem of low-achieving schools.6 The 2015 OSD bill was modeled after similar school plans in Tennessee and Louisiana.7 Louisiana's Recovery
[Page 172]
School District (RSD) was the first and largest of the pioneer "turnaround" programs.8 The program began in 2003 and expanded greatly in 2005 when the entire New Orleans school district was incorporated into the RSD following Hurricane Katrina.9 A decade after its inception, RSD schools showed marked improvements in some achievement areas.10 However, persistent failure in key metrics, such as high school achievement indicators, called into question the true efficacy of the program.11
The Tennessee Achievement School District (ASD) is generally viewed as the true model for the proposed 2015 Georgia OSD plan.12 Like the Louisiana system, the Tennessee ASD schools saw a slight uptick in educational attainment metrics, but nevertheless remained some of the lowest performing schools in the state.13 In fact, opponents of the Georgia OSD plan frequently cited the dubious success of both the Tennessee and Louisiana systems.14 Under the Tennessee plan, low-achieving schools were placed under the control of charters, and parents did not have a choice regarding whether to send their children to the new charter or to another school in the district.15 Similarly, under the 2015 Georgia OSD proposal, eligible schools would be taken over by the OSD and either closed down, run by the government via the OSD, or converted into independent charter schools.16
Under the 2015 OSD proposal, a school was "chronically failing" if it scored an "F" on the Georgia Department of Education's (DOE) accountability test, the College and Career Performance Index (CCPI), for three years in a row.17 In 2016, 127 of Georgia's 2,089
[Page 173]
schools fell into this category.18 Of these failing schools, the state would intervene in no more than twenty per year and would cap the number of schools in the OSD program at any given time at one hundred.19 The OSD would be under the control of a special superintendent, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.20 Once admitted to the OSD, a school would remain under the supervision of the OSD superintendent for a minimum of five consecutive years but could exit early if it scored higher than an "F" on the CCPI for three consecutive years.21 The OSD bill passed in both the House and the Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 21, 2015.22 However, this enabling legislation could not become effective unless voters passed an amendment to the Georgia Constitution because of strict language in the Georgia Constitution that specifically grants the authority to establish and maintain schools to local and area school boards.23
The OSD amendment faced strong opposition.24 Concerned citizens even filed a class-action lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against Governor Deal and his team.25 The lawsuit alleged that the language of the OSD amendment was "so misleading and deceptive that it violates the due process and voting rights of all Georgia voters."26 Interest groups like the Georgia Parent Teacher Association (Georgia PTA),27 Professional Association of Georgia Educators (PAGE),28 and Georgia Association of Educational
[Page 174]
Leaders (GAEL)29 all opposed the OSD amendment. OSD's opponents argued that the program robbed local school districts of control over their own public schools and vested that control in a non-elected political appointee who may be out of touch with the varying needs of Georgia's diverse school districts.30 Critics also expressed concerns that the OSD plan would rob public education of much needed public funds and give those dollars to private educational management corporations to run the OSD schools, thereby effectively privatizing Georgia's educational system.31 On Election Day, six out of every ten voters rejected the OSD amendment.32
After the overwhelming defeat of OSD at the ballot box, supporters of school turnaround began work on what would become the First Priority Act.33 Sponsored by Dawsonville's Representative Kevin Tanner (R-9th), the Act demonstrates lawmakers' commitment to reaching across the aisle and addressing the concerns that plagued OSD.34 Representative Tanner noted the collaborative effort behind the First Priority Act in his opening remarks in the House:
[O]ne of the conversations that we heard, and the complaints we heard with OSD was that the education community was not engaged. That cannot be said about this process. They have been engaged from the beginning and I appreciate their input . . . [O]n your desk you have PAGE and the GAEL—their statement that they are neutral on this legislation. If you've worked in education policy to be able
[Page 175]
to get those organizations [to] take a neutral stance is a victory within itself.35
Policymakers' joint efforts paid off, and Governor Deal signed the First Priority Act into law on April 27, 2017.36
Bill Tracking of HB 338
Consideration and Passage by the House
Representative Kevin Tanner (R-9th) sponsored HB 338 in the House.37 Representatives Brooks Coleman (R-97th), Jan Jones (R-47th), Jon Burns (R-159th), Christian Coomer (R-14th), and Matt Hatchett (R-150th) were additional co-sponsors in the House.38 The House read the bill for the first time on February 10, 2017, and committed it to the House Education...
